Fed. Judge dismisses NFA trial against LEO…..

Judge clears Illinois officer of gun charge
By Tim O’Neil
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Wednesday, Aug. 30 2006

SEE THREAD http://www.hk94.com/hk/State-trooper-plead…gun-t20151.html For Past Discussion

Charges that an Illinois State Police sergeant illegally possessed a machine
gun were dismissed Wednesday by a federal judge, who ruled that the law was
“unconstitutionally vague” as applied to him.

In federal court in East St. Louis, U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon
dropped the charges against Sgt. James V. Vest of O’Fallon, Ill., who was lead
rifle instructor for the department’s District 11 in the Metro East area.
Herndon’s 26-page order says the confusion is over the federal law’s exception
for police officers, and whether Vest could reasonably be expected to know
whether he was breaking the law.

Vest was one of four people, including two other Illinois state troopers,
separately accused in January of illegally possessing machine guns. Such fully
automatic weapons are banned by federal law except for certain uses, such as by
the military and police agencies, or by people with a special license, which
the four did not have.

A machine gun fires multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger.

How Herndon’s ruling would affect the other cases was unclear Wednesday, partly
because the charges against them are not identical.

Two other defendants, State Police Special Agent John Yard of Collinsville and
Dr. Harold Griffiths of Spaulding, Ill., have similar constitutional claims
pending before U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan in East St. Louis.

The remaining defendant, Senior Master Trooper Greg Mugge of Jerseyville,
pleaded guilty July 25 of possession of an unregistered machine gun. His
lawyer, John Delaney Jr., said Wednesday that he was studying the Vest case
ruling. “Who knows what will happen?” he said.

Clyde Kuehn, one of Vest’s lawyers, said Wednesday “was a very relieving and
happy day” for his client. Vest remains on administrative leave.

The four were charged after investigations by the federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It was not clear at the outset what triggered
the probe. None of the four was accused of using the weapons in any crimes.

U.S. Attorney Randy Massey, whose office brought the charges, declined
Wednesday to discuss Herndon’s ruling. Massey’s office had opposed Vest’s
motion to dismiss.

“We are evaluating the order and are looking into our options,” he said.

The charges carry a maximum prison term of 10 years and a fine of up to
$250,000, although federal guidelines call for less when defendants have no
criminal records.

Gun used in classes

The case against Vest concerned an M-4 machine gun, essentially a short-barrel
form of the standard M-16 military weapon, that he bought in 1998 and used in
his state police training classes. The charges allege that he lacked authority
from the state to buy or possess the weapon.

Vest argued that he bought and used it under the “law enforcement exception” in
the federal law. Some police agencies have machine guns in their arsenals,
particularly for their tactical teams.

Herndon noted that the prosecution never claimed that Vest ever used the M-4
for anything but official purposes. The judge said the government argued that a
law enforcement agency, not a single police officer, has the authority to
permit possession of a machine gun.

But Herndon wrote that the federal law granting that authority was too vague in
this instance to support the charges against Vest.

“How would a police officer/lead rifle instructor such as Vest ever know
whether his possession of a machine gun or other prohibited weapon was legal,
as there is no guidance under the (statute) as to what constitutes proper
authority,” the judge wrote. “It does not appear that this statute was designed
to criminalize police officers even if they may be guilty of mere technical
violations.”

Given that Vest apparently used it only for law enforcement purposes, Herndon
said, charging him “seems to go against the purpose” of the federal law.

A spokesman for the Illinois State Police headquarters in Springfield had no
comment on the ruling and said he could not discuss personnel matters regarding
Vest.

In February, 10 Metro East police chiefs, two county sheriffs and two state
senators publicly urged leniency for the accused officers.

==============================================

You’re a cop, so you’re not expected to understand the law?

But if you’re not a cop you are expected to understand the law?

Lovely to think that if it were me in that mans’ position, I’d become the Emporer of my own little 8X8 cell for the rest of my life.

-Yaho